Presumably have been negative if it is said that tolerance is a life-death issue for a very plural society like Indonesia. And of late, with the trend of conservatism menguatnya and radikalisasi views and practices of religious tolerance so ultim betting. Moreover, if inter-group conflict menohok already familiar traditions and religious struggle. In situ, the liyan (the other) tend dipersepsi as "foreigners" (stranger), or even "enemy" (more subtle: "competitors") ranah in the number of people struggling, so do not be feasible konstitusionalnya rights.
As was shown with good by David Lochhead, root-root of the suspicion that this is embedded in, even a part of the inherent formation of religious identity. In any religious tradition, according to Lochhead, are always seed-seed ideology and / or theology of isolasionis (each religious life and in developing its own ghettonya), konfrontasionis (and the other is a different competitors that need to be suspected), and even hatred (and the other is a different enemy that must be ditaklukkan).
Boundaries they are very thin and vague, especially when associated with the logic of power that is inherent in every religion.
Therefore, although religion mendaku self-risalahnya that is for all mankind, but the required length of time and the struggle that sometimes bersimbah blood that religious traditions can receive understand "universal humanity" that is able to understand "the people versus our foreign ". Awareness that all human beings, regardless of background color, sex, and have confidence that dipeluknya sublime dignity that must be protected, only a vague awareness to enter the religious-even is still debated today.
In the context of such provocative essays Michael Walzer, On Toleration, can open many ranah problematic if the challenging problems of tolerance would be discussed seriously. I do not want to compress the text that is already dense here, but take some knitting problem as departure point to check the practices of tolerance.
Walzer deliberately take toleration, tolerance and not, as the entrance. For the study by Walzer are practices (meaning also: historical-concrete) tolerance, not the principles of tolerance that applies universally. During this diskursus tolerance, as well as philosophical diskursus in general, depart from the abstract set of premises, and held in line with the main rules that have or be. They are involved in the in-famous for the expression of John Rawls, one of the exhibitor this tradition-such "cloak ignorance" (veil of ignorance). The principles agreed upon in the process and the assumptive nature universal, can be applied everywhere, and binding on all parties-including the "we" who do not participate in the diskursus.
Walzer would like to take a different approach. For practices of tolerance-or, sederhananya, peaceful coexistence (peaceful coexistence) groups of people who have a history, culture, and different identity (p. 2)-must also be placed in the concrete-historical situation. For the peaceful coexistence that can take the form of a different political backgrounds, each with its own implications. How the political is the best, is certainly, is determined by the history and culture of the people who want to set (p. 5).
But what is if someone or a group of people or groups tolerate each other? What if people are talking about peaceful coexistence? Tolerance as an attitude, according to Walzer, refer to the various possibilities, in the dimension that varies in a line kontinuum (p. 10 - 11) like this: First, that may reflect a growing religious tolerance in Europe since the tenth century-16 and to-17, is simply "passive acceptance" (resigned acceptance) differences for the sake of peace, people feel tired after slaughter each other. Clearly this is not enough, and therefore can dicandra dynamic movement toward the second dimension, "the soft passivity" (benign indifferent) on the difference.
In situ, the liyan recognized there, but attendance does not mean anything. Matra third step further: there is "recognition of the principle" (principled recognition) that the liyan have rights of their own, though perhaps not ekspresinya approved. Fourth dimension not only of the show, but also "on the other transparency" (openness to the others), or at least to more keingintahuan can understand the liyan. Position in the most remote kontinuum this, that is, the fifth dimension, not just recognize and open, but would also support (endorsement), or even caring for and celebrating the differences, either because the aesthetic-religious reasons (as the diversity of God's creation) and ideological confidence (the diversity of the fertile ground for the development of the human race).
Walzer acknowledges, the fifth dimension is outside the focus bahasannya. What is the central concern is how the political setting that can best maintain peaceful coexistence among the groups. To track the flow of he-historical flows what disebutnya as a "regime of tolerance" (Chapter II) in the history of the West gave him "the ideal type" (Weber in a sense) how the practices of tolerance concrete progress. Without the need to follow the Lika-coil argumentasinya the rich and complex, the five ideal types of contention-Walzer kingdom that is multinational, the international community, konsosiasi (line-up of two or more countries, such as the EU), the state of the nation-state, and community open-migrants ranah problematic the very complex. Some simpulannya should be discussed further. I will limit the three crucial aspects.
First, tolerance with regard to the object. Walzer study shows, the new nation-state as individual citizens (citizen) to be the object of tolerance. Shows the long history of tolerance is given only on the group, not individuals. This is clearly seen in the kingdom of multinational system and the international community. Therefore, Walzer says, "ranah transition from the kingdom to the nation-state that is independent critical point in the history of tolerance" (p. 54).
Shifting the object have the implications of this tolerance is very far, because for the first time given to the individual tolerance with all their rights, and not only as members of particular groups. In the system with the power of the kingdom more or less concentrated despite teritorinya can include a variety of nations (such as Pax Romana, Ottoman Sultanate, Majapahit Kingdom dstnya), according to Walzer, the identity of the individual views and tend to be valued only as part of a group identity in which individuals become members. This system tolerate practices and structures of authority within each group, but not the individual actions and choices per man, ie, as individual men and-especially! Independent women.
System "Millet" Ottoman Sultanate is an example par excellence is a matter, which is often referred to as the important precedent model tolerance inter-religious people. Where each religious community (the word means Millet religious community) who have, whether Muslim, Christian Orthodox, and Jewish, is recognized as one of self-rule and permitted to apply the law against religious restriktif individual members, as well as subject Islamic government in the Ottoman Sultanate. But here the individual does not have the right to vary, or take action themselves in accordance with a free heart nuraninya (p. 17 - 18).
This is very clearly visible, as shown Kymlicka, on the freedom of two principled dimension which is always the issue of tolerance inter-religious people: the individual right to choose religion or confidence in accordance nuraninya heart, and the right individual to have a different understanding. Millet system does not enable good practice bid'ah (the commentary is dominant) and heterodox (choose a different confidence). Both will be regarded as crimes that should be punished. Even die.
Discussion above we take on the crucial aspects of the second subject of power. The practice of tolerance, in essence, is the practice of power. Walzer quoted adagium Stephen L. Carter, that the language of tolerance is the language of power. System in the kingdom, the power center of the guarantee of order, and Millet system is essentially an effort to maintain order (harmony) through the existing political identity freezing discussed below. The emergence of nation-state move the center of power, and place them on the majority of the groups that will use devices of their interests in order to maintain (p. 55).
New nation-state on the issue of majority-minority mencuat to the surface and add the complex problems of the practice of tolerance. Indeed, in the nation-state system, in principle, there is no pemaksaan (coercion) to the individual. But each individual will experience pressure (pressure) to adapt, ie, berasimilasi with the values, culture, customs and way of life the majority of the dominant group. And the problem becomes much more complex if the diversity of groups, cultural differences, etnisitas, or race-bertumpang up with the imbalance of social-economic classes (p. 56 dstnya). Historical record, in situations such as these practices can take place very intolerant destruktif.
Third: the issue of identity fragmentary. Millet system is indeed freezing political identity. As a member of a group (ethnic, race, religion, customs, dstnya), the identity of someone considered to be the same as the group identity, and is seen as a single, whole, raw materials are, and can not be changed.
That is why people can not cross the borders of identity that is clearly dipatok. Freezing political identity that is the kind that, indeed, create a central authority in order to ensure sustainability and preserve the power regime authorities.
However, this system can not survive in the middle of the wave movement of the population nowadays because of the stronger flow of modernization (internal migration in the country) and globalization (migration between countries). Even flow of globalization also make a fundamental challenge to the nation-state system and encourage what is called Walzer as "post-modern project." To understand, we must reverse a moment.
Two forms of the practice of tolerance that developed in the nation-state system, ie, asimilasi individual recognition and rights groups, such as Walzer reminded (p. 84 dstnya), basically the main project is a modern political democracy. There dilandaskan tolerance on individual rights as citizens regardless of their membership in a group of primordial. Thus, the project modernis that would include all the people in the democratic system (the politics of inclusion, the term Habermas) can take place.
But Walzer reminds, this project is a certain kind of face ganda: on the one hand, there is struggle for entry into the equivalent of, on the other hand, because the demands of the rights groups, particularly minority groups, for the voiceless, have a place, and the political-can also mean separation (Separation). Melatari This is a struggle for "self-determination of the fate" of meruyak in many places, especially when triggered by bitter experience be by a majority interest.
Globalization makes this problem complex and acute gain. Torrent of migrants discuss the dominant narratives-narratives of identity during this streamlining of the nation-state, and overturn the position and the majority-minority relations. In the five ideal types, the newcomers, people began to experience what this be thought of as life without limits is not a clear-territorial borders of nation-state is (almost) does not mean now?-And without a single identity that gives a sense ( ny) safe. The more experienced people, with the acceleration of technology, communication and transportation now, that their identity is the fragment-fragment tercerai berai from the bond-bond of the long lost, without a possibility to make a series of fragments that the whole thing again. The result is an identity of the fragmentary, the dipersatukan only by the speed, a hyphenated identities!
This is certainly add complexity issues of tolerance. For there must be tolerance at the same time include some level: as a citizen-nation (even if it limits teritorialnya increasingly blurred), as the primordial member of the group (the union and the pesonanya disappeared), as well as personal identity is plural, fragmentary, never full and single. Walzer dub the issue as a "post-project modernis" which, I think, will increasingly become a problem all of us in the future. I do not want to enter the problem in detail here. But, at least, tuturan above shows that the concept of tolerance itself is not sufficient to handle the complexity of the issue. A thinker Coptic Christian from Egypt, Milad Hanna, that tolerance, which is often translated into Arabic as al-tasâmuh always suppose that the power relations, not as a balanced context. (Remember diktum above: that the language of tolerance is the language of power at the top.) Therefore, he proposed the new term, qabûlul âkhar, "commemorate the liyan," a more active and egaliter as the new language of tolerance. Hanna said, "The al-tasâmuh only meaningful when there is a guilty party, and the other assistance taste. While qabûlul âkhar in more meaningful and more active; receive and welcome other people, not just bertenggang sense. " But, with that also, we have cross the boundaries established Michael Walzer and reaching new problematic ranah we should discuss together and arungi
As was shown with good by David Lochhead, root-root of the suspicion that this is embedded in, even a part of the inherent formation of religious identity. In any religious tradition, according to Lochhead, are always seed-seed ideology and / or theology of isolasionis (each religious life and in developing its own ghettonya), konfrontasionis (and the other is a different competitors that need to be suspected), and even hatred (and the other is a different enemy that must be ditaklukkan).
Boundaries they are very thin and vague, especially when associated with the logic of power that is inherent in every religion.
Therefore, although religion mendaku self-risalahnya that is for all mankind, but the required length of time and the struggle that sometimes bersimbah blood that religious traditions can receive understand "universal humanity" that is able to understand "the people versus our foreign ". Awareness that all human beings, regardless of background color, sex, and have confidence that dipeluknya sublime dignity that must be protected, only a vague awareness to enter the religious-even is still debated today.
In the context of such provocative essays Michael Walzer, On Toleration, can open many ranah problematic if the challenging problems of tolerance would be discussed seriously. I do not want to compress the text that is already dense here, but take some knitting problem as departure point to check the practices of tolerance.
Walzer deliberately take toleration, tolerance and not, as the entrance. For the study by Walzer are practices (meaning also: historical-concrete) tolerance, not the principles of tolerance that applies universally. During this diskursus tolerance, as well as philosophical diskursus in general, depart from the abstract set of premises, and held in line with the main rules that have or be. They are involved in the in-famous for the expression of John Rawls, one of the exhibitor this tradition-such "cloak ignorance" (veil of ignorance). The principles agreed upon in the process and the assumptive nature universal, can be applied everywhere, and binding on all parties-including the "we" who do not participate in the diskursus.
Walzer would like to take a different approach. For practices of tolerance-or, sederhananya, peaceful coexistence (peaceful coexistence) groups of people who have a history, culture, and different identity (p. 2)-must also be placed in the concrete-historical situation. For the peaceful coexistence that can take the form of a different political backgrounds, each with its own implications. How the political is the best, is certainly, is determined by the history and culture of the people who want to set (p. 5).
But what is if someone or a group of people or groups tolerate each other? What if people are talking about peaceful coexistence? Tolerance as an attitude, according to Walzer, refer to the various possibilities, in the dimension that varies in a line kontinuum (p. 10 - 11) like this: First, that may reflect a growing religious tolerance in Europe since the tenth century-16 and to-17, is simply "passive acceptance" (resigned acceptance) differences for the sake of peace, people feel tired after slaughter each other. Clearly this is not enough, and therefore can dicandra dynamic movement toward the second dimension, "the soft passivity" (benign indifferent) on the difference.
In situ, the liyan recognized there, but attendance does not mean anything. Matra third step further: there is "recognition of the principle" (principled recognition) that the liyan have rights of their own, though perhaps not ekspresinya approved. Fourth dimension not only of the show, but also "on the other transparency" (openness to the others), or at least to more keingintahuan can understand the liyan. Position in the most remote kontinuum this, that is, the fifth dimension, not just recognize and open, but would also support (endorsement), or even caring for and celebrating the differences, either because the aesthetic-religious reasons (as the diversity of God's creation) and ideological confidence (the diversity of the fertile ground for the development of the human race).
Walzer acknowledges, the fifth dimension is outside the focus bahasannya. What is the central concern is how the political setting that can best maintain peaceful coexistence among the groups. To track the flow of he-historical flows what disebutnya as a "regime of tolerance" (Chapter II) in the history of the West gave him "the ideal type" (Weber in a sense) how the practices of tolerance concrete progress. Without the need to follow the Lika-coil argumentasinya the rich and complex, the five ideal types of contention-Walzer kingdom that is multinational, the international community, konsosiasi (line-up of two or more countries, such as the EU), the state of the nation-state, and community open-migrants ranah problematic the very complex. Some simpulannya should be discussed further. I will limit the three crucial aspects.
First, tolerance with regard to the object. Walzer study shows, the new nation-state as individual citizens (citizen) to be the object of tolerance. Shows the long history of tolerance is given only on the group, not individuals. This is clearly seen in the kingdom of multinational system and the international community. Therefore, Walzer says, "ranah transition from the kingdom to the nation-state that is independent critical point in the history of tolerance" (p. 54).
Shifting the object have the implications of this tolerance is very far, because for the first time given to the individual tolerance with all their rights, and not only as members of particular groups. In the system with the power of the kingdom more or less concentrated despite teritorinya can include a variety of nations (such as Pax Romana, Ottoman Sultanate, Majapahit Kingdom dstnya), according to Walzer, the identity of the individual views and tend to be valued only as part of a group identity in which individuals become members. This system tolerate practices and structures of authority within each group, but not the individual actions and choices per man, ie, as individual men and-especially! Independent women.
System "Millet" Ottoman Sultanate is an example par excellence is a matter, which is often referred to as the important precedent model tolerance inter-religious people. Where each religious community (the word means Millet religious community) who have, whether Muslim, Christian Orthodox, and Jewish, is recognized as one of self-rule and permitted to apply the law against religious restriktif individual members, as well as subject Islamic government in the Ottoman Sultanate. But here the individual does not have the right to vary, or take action themselves in accordance with a free heart nuraninya (p. 17 - 18).
This is very clearly visible, as shown Kymlicka, on the freedom of two principled dimension which is always the issue of tolerance inter-religious people: the individual right to choose religion or confidence in accordance nuraninya heart, and the right individual to have a different understanding. Millet system does not enable good practice bid'ah (the commentary is dominant) and heterodox (choose a different confidence). Both will be regarded as crimes that should be punished. Even die.
Discussion above we take on the crucial aspects of the second subject of power. The practice of tolerance, in essence, is the practice of power. Walzer quoted adagium Stephen L. Carter, that the language of tolerance is the language of power. System in the kingdom, the power center of the guarantee of order, and Millet system is essentially an effort to maintain order (harmony) through the existing political identity freezing discussed below. The emergence of nation-state move the center of power, and place them on the majority of the groups that will use devices of their interests in order to maintain (p. 55).
New nation-state on the issue of majority-minority mencuat to the surface and add the complex problems of the practice of tolerance. Indeed, in the nation-state system, in principle, there is no pemaksaan (coercion) to the individual. But each individual will experience pressure (pressure) to adapt, ie, berasimilasi with the values, culture, customs and way of life the majority of the dominant group. And the problem becomes much more complex if the diversity of groups, cultural differences, etnisitas, or race-bertumpang up with the imbalance of social-economic classes (p. 56 dstnya). Historical record, in situations such as these practices can take place very intolerant destruktif.
Third: the issue of identity fragmentary. Millet system is indeed freezing political identity. As a member of a group (ethnic, race, religion, customs, dstnya), the identity of someone considered to be the same as the group identity, and is seen as a single, whole, raw materials are, and can not be changed.
That is why people can not cross the borders of identity that is clearly dipatok. Freezing political identity that is the kind that, indeed, create a central authority in order to ensure sustainability and preserve the power regime authorities.
However, this system can not survive in the middle of the wave movement of the population nowadays because of the stronger flow of modernization (internal migration in the country) and globalization (migration between countries). Even flow of globalization also make a fundamental challenge to the nation-state system and encourage what is called Walzer as "post-modern project." To understand, we must reverse a moment.
Two forms of the practice of tolerance that developed in the nation-state system, ie, asimilasi individual recognition and rights groups, such as Walzer reminded (p. 84 dstnya), basically the main project is a modern political democracy. There dilandaskan tolerance on individual rights as citizens regardless of their membership in a group of primordial. Thus, the project modernis that would include all the people in the democratic system (the politics of inclusion, the term Habermas) can take place.
But Walzer reminds, this project is a certain kind of face ganda: on the one hand, there is struggle for entry into the equivalent of, on the other hand, because the demands of the rights groups, particularly minority groups, for the voiceless, have a place, and the political-can also mean separation (Separation). Melatari This is a struggle for "self-determination of the fate" of meruyak in many places, especially when triggered by bitter experience be by a majority interest.
Globalization makes this problem complex and acute gain. Torrent of migrants discuss the dominant narratives-narratives of identity during this streamlining of the nation-state, and overturn the position and the majority-minority relations. In the five ideal types, the newcomers, people began to experience what this be thought of as life without limits is not a clear-territorial borders of nation-state is (almost) does not mean now?-And without a single identity that gives a sense ( ny) safe. The more experienced people, with the acceleration of technology, communication and transportation now, that their identity is the fragment-fragment tercerai berai from the bond-bond of the long lost, without a possibility to make a series of fragments that the whole thing again. The result is an identity of the fragmentary, the dipersatukan only by the speed, a hyphenated identities!
This is certainly add complexity issues of tolerance. For there must be tolerance at the same time include some level: as a citizen-nation (even if it limits teritorialnya increasingly blurred), as the primordial member of the group (the union and the pesonanya disappeared), as well as personal identity is plural, fragmentary, never full and single. Walzer dub the issue as a "post-project modernis" which, I think, will increasingly become a problem all of us in the future. I do not want to enter the problem in detail here. But, at least, tuturan above shows that the concept of tolerance itself is not sufficient to handle the complexity of the issue. A thinker Coptic Christian from Egypt, Milad Hanna, that tolerance, which is often translated into Arabic as al-tasâmuh always suppose that the power relations, not as a balanced context. (Remember diktum above: that the language of tolerance is the language of power at the top.) Therefore, he proposed the new term, qabûlul âkhar, "commemorate the liyan," a more active and egaliter as the new language of tolerance. Hanna said, "The al-tasâmuh only meaningful when there is a guilty party, and the other assistance taste. While qabûlul âkhar in more meaningful and more active; receive and welcome other people, not just bertenggang sense. " But, with that also, we have cross the boundaries established Michael Walzer and reaching new problematic ranah we should discuss together and arungi
0 komentar:
Post a Comment
Please fill your comment